RWB

I've seen several similarly stained Morgans, and not one of them looked much better when dipped - the tarnish is too extensive - all that was left were silver chloride coated coins.

OK. Thanks for the correction.

Plus the designs are uniformly commonplace magazine art.

Mark is right in stating that one cannot usually form a grading opinion from a photo. I fully agree, and should have stated that much earlier. This proof half dollar is a clear exception, and the posturing to make it otherwise is not serviceable. The photo shown was not "cherry picked." It is part of any normal range of photos some of which show certain details better than others. That the abrasion is less evident in other photos, does not make the one highlighting wear wrong or deceptive. Mark and I do not agree on coin grading - largely because I have no financial interest in the result, and believe that only repeatable, data driven results should, be used to establish a legitimate "grade." (Incidentally, that is also what is necessary to get Courts to support civil actions against overgrading and misrepresentation of coins.) His opinions are formed from working exclusively in a $$$-based environment where anything that increases sales or profit is the goal. Slippery grading, or calling AU coins "virtually uncirculated" or "cabinet friction" as one semi-old time shyster loved to do, are not acceptable. Now -- if the PF-58 half were to be pulled back, and the owner made good for any loss in market value, that would go a small way to improving credibility. But I really doubt that will happen - even after pigs fly.

This was copied from a post “Difference Between AU58 and MS60 Article” by PCGS member DisneyFan. It seems relevant to the present discussion and need for absolute honesty in “grading.” [https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1063573/difference-between-au58-and-ms60-article] “Despite the unequivocal objective, wear-based differences separating an AU58 coin from being an MS60, there are many subjective reasons why some collectors may prefer an AU58 over its MS60 counterpart. The awarding of an MS60 label doesn’t guarantee that the given coin will necessarily look especially nice for its grade, and there are many cases in which a collector might find a nicely preserved AU58 the superior specimen from the standpoint of eye appeal. Furthermore, the AU58 will also likely cost less than the similar MS60 specimen, due to its lower technical grade. Then again, when it comes to raw numbers, the MS60 does offer the collector the higher technical grade. Consequently, in the case of the PCGS Set Registry, the MS60 at the most basic level provides a higher score to the collector than the equitable AU58 could mathematically offer. Yes, the MS60 might cost slightly more – maybe much more – than its AU58 counterpart, depending on the coin. But at the end of the day, the MS60 does afford the collector potentially better positioning for their collection on the PCGS Set Registry, and this can mean the difference between an award for having the best set and being a runner up.”

This transcription is of a memorandum regarding the robbery of the Mint Cabinet of Coins, Medals and Ores, August 18, 1858. The bar and $25 Templeton Reid coin were, reportedly, not recovered. Robbery in the Cabinet, August 18, 1858. About ten or eleven o’clock this morning, the case in the circle, containing experimental and pattern pieces of the United States, was opened by a company of three men, who spent some time in the rooms, watching [for] an opportunity, and engaging the attendant with questions. The following pieces were taken out. · One gold piece, twenty-five dollars, issued by Templeton Reid in California, 1849. · Two gold pieces, each twenty dollars, issued by Moffatt & Company in California, 1853. · Two gold pieces of the U.S. Assay Office, San Francisco, 1853, each twenty dollars. · Two gold pieces, octagonal, each fifty dollars, of Augustus Humbert, U.S. Assayer, San Francisco, 1851. · One gold bar, stamped “F. D. Kohler, State Assayer, Cal. 1850, 221-1/8 carats $40.07.” The whole intrinsic and cost price was $245.07; but the pieces being rare, would have commanded a higher price [from collectors]. Three of the perpetrators were soon after arrested, convicted, and sent to the penitentiary. The skeleton key with which they opened the case, was left here by a police officer. (After serving their time in prison, some of them came into the Cabinet again, apparently prowling for an opportunity to steal; but perceiving that they were watched, they decamped.)

Understood. The second photo is not an improvement. Image quality degradation is not noticeable in most amateur photos - users are simply not looking for it, or assume that "is what it is." The harsh contrast and poor detail comes from the phone's software trying to "improve" the image - and failing. Coins are especially tough to photograph, so don't punish yourself about it. If the phone has image quality settings, turn off compression (or set to minimum compression), and limit sharpening to about 50%.

Yes. It requires only one lighting angle to show the wear. PF-58 is the only possible "grade." That many agree with Mark or other $$$ oriented folks is OK with me. I expect - require - honesty in any coins I buy for collecting purposes; if others don't care, or wish to delude themselves, and that does not impact others, that is their option. BUT - it is not an option, in my view, for any TPG or others purporting to "grade" coins.

Circulated. Limited numismatic value. (Your photos show excess image compression and false sharpening. Consider changing your camera/phone settings to improve quality.)

Might be a way to discourage overgrading.....?

False. The photos are absolutely clear. All "grades" are opinions. You should know enough to realize that your comments are supportive of lies and misrepresentation and therefore irresponsible. Or is your guiding principle merely greed instead of truth? You, as a prominent member of the commercial numismatic community should be encouraging honesty and accuracy in TPS "grading" opinions, not disparaging the whistleblowers.

The coin in question has wear on the leg and breast. It does not matter how this happened, and the old con line of "cabinet friction" is nothing but an attempt to misdirect buyer attention. Since proof coins are never bagged, contact with other coins in a bag cannot not be used as an excuse. Thus the coin can never be higher that "58" or in this case PF-58, exactly as TPRC and others stated. The grade assigned by a third party of PF-63 is clearly - obviously- false. The result is that the present owner has been potentially cheated by paying for a grossly overgraded coin. This is not a matter of quibbling over a point or two - the assigned grade is false and this kind of basic error should never get out of a professional company. Dealers and collectors must demand that TPG produce consistent, accurate results. However, the lure of easy money seems to activate the greed button in some, making the original submitter a handsome profit for an obviously overgraded coin. It's especially sad that the present owner seems to think his AU-58 proof should actually be graded higher.... Please folks, learn to grade your coins and act first in your own interest when buying. Do Not depend on the label.

Not on this one. The type was corrected, but the question remains valid.

Pedigree refers only to things which have a lineage of reproduction. Provenance is the correct numismatic term - even for those too lazy to write sentences or capitalize the first word of a pretend-sentence.

This proof half dollar was posted on another site with the claim that it was "PF-63." The owner questioned why the independently stated "grade" was not higher. Take a close look and post your thoughts on the real grade of this coin - and why.

It's just a lot of wear from the dryer mechanism - the coin does not get warm enough to have any effect.

A "crock pot" version (the Bull of Phalaris) was also popular -- at least in parts of ancient Greece. It would have been a dandy way of discouraging counterfeiters. RE: "...with "legal electrocution," introduced at Auburn State Prison in New Yok after experiments on AC vs DC current." As happily encourage by the lovingly creative Thomas Edison. He began by electrocuting mice and worked his way up to elephants, then sold the idea to criminal justice fans for human use.

Suggest you do a lot of coin show looking and reading about coins so you are comfortable with the specialized language and understand common terminology. Your title and post text indicate that you presently don't have the vocabulary to have the faintest chance of success. This is not intended to be "mean spirited" - it is basic, practical advice.

When the story is false, the coin must stand on its own merits.

Follow Mark's advice -- unless you want to post sharp photos for the members to critique.

FYI - Low relief 1922-1928 coins were made from a new model by de Francisci. In this instance he possibly went too far in reducing relief and ended up what a flat, poorly defined design. I suggest that it could have been improved with a little more time and attention by both the Mint and the artist; however, Treasury Secretary Mellon's only interest was in redeeming Pittman silver bonds. It is unlikely he would have sanctioned any delay.

Here's an authentic, well struck 1921 for comparison. Here's the fake. (Possibly copied from a US-made counterfeit.)

"Boiling to Death Boiling to death was usually reserved for poisoners, coin forgers and counterfeiters. It involved being flung into a cauldron of boiling water or oil and the accused would slowly scald to death." [https://www.history.co.uk/shows/britains-bloodiest-dynasty/] Have a nice day!

Wasted 2x2 and staples.

First thing you have to do is figure out when Joshua (aka "Jesus") was hanging around. The coin illustrated is outside that range, and has no relation to the quotation that was invented 150 years later.